it has been a long time coming. >> the bigger the freak, the better the story. >> we'll see you tomorrow. >> eliot: good evening. i'm eliot spitzer. this is "viewpoint." air war between hamas and israel has stretched into a seventh day. israeli forces fight to put an end to months of indiscriminate rocket attacks on israeli civilians. while a cease-fire was said to be eminent, it looks as though diplomacy and the fighting will continue for at least another day. this evening, secretary of state hillary clinton joined the parade of diplomats trying to end the crisis which so far has taken at least 130 palestinian and 5 israeli lives before talks began with israeli prime minister netanyahu secretary clinton defined america's bottom

line for the crisis. >> it is essential to de-escalate the situation in gaza. the rocket attacks from terrorist organizations inside gaza on israeli cities and towns must end and a broader calm restored. >> eliot: the secretary also said any short-term solution should lead to something more lasting. >> the goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of israelis and palestinians alike. >> eliot: but with israeli forces still amassing on the border netanyahu said they were ready to escalate the conflict if peace talks fail. >> if there is a possibility of achieving a long-term solution to this problem through diplomatic means, we prefer that. but if not i'm sure you understand that israel will have to take whatever action is necessary to defend its people. >> eliot: as always, israeli

self-defense has severe critics including a one-time regional party, turkey. turkish prime minister morsi represents an islamist political party has condemned them saying israel is committing terrorist attacks. for more, i'm joined by p.j. crowley, former assistant secretary of state for public affairs for president obama. former special assistant for national security affairs to president president clinton and a professor at george washington university. thank you for joining us, professor. >> pleasure, eliot always. >> eliot: it seems so tantalizingly closer. a cease-fire was about to be announced. you've been through the process before. can you infer or suggest or understand what would be a sticking point at this late moment? >> part of this is probably one or both of the parties haven't got man they need out of current crisis. i strongly suspect it is probably on the hamas side where they're looking for assurances

that if there is a cease-fire, there will be some relaxation of the israeli blockade and obviously israel is in no position to grant such a wish as long as there are rockets that are continuing to rain down on the israeli population. >> that seems like such a fundamental issue. do you think israel will agree there should be a cease-fire if it in any way relaxes the blockade. the blockade has been central to its approach to hamas. hamas is a terrorist organization internationally recognized as such. it would seem to me israel would be hesitant to reward hamas' -- sending so many missiles with the relaxation because that's the old moral hazard from the financial crisis. you don't want to reward bad behavior. do you think that will be the outcome? >> you can flip that around. it is what we've seen over the past week is the blockade has not worked. probably -- a key piece of that is clearly that only has hamas been able to build some kind of

indigenous rocket capability but also i strongly suspect in the mayhem following the arab spring, there's been a relaxation of egyptian willingness to interdict materials that are coming into gaza from a variety of sources perhaps iran perhaps libya. but -- so i think this is part of the challenge here. one is hillary clinton's gotta figure out how to get the parties to a cease-fire. reinforce the diplomacy that's already going on. secondly both on the israeli side and the egyptian side, how to prevent this from reoccurring. we don't want to have -- to be facing the same kind of confrontation three months from now or six months from now. >> eliot: so many critical points you just made. one is the natural and seemingly organic recurrence of this. almost as though this is the third. you raise a fascinating point. do you think that egypt having after -- morsi took over, relaxed the borders with gaza is now perhaps regretting having done so because i'm not sure egypt gains and if morsi thought he could cut off the missiles to

gaza wouldn't he want to do that because this is -- it's hard to see how he wins out of this process. >> he doesn't potentially win out of this process. obviously there is an affinity that morsi you know and the freedom of justice party you know, with an affiliation to muslim brotherhood and to hamas while they have sympathy for the palestinian plight in gaza, obviously a conflict at its border with israel. ultimately it is bad for egypt and potentially threatens the international assistance including the assistance from the united states that egypt will require to help its economy recover. >> eliot: that is the balancing act that prime minister morsi is trying to effect wait here. in essence for his economy to come back, he knows he needs the united states. he needs peace. a war would be devastating to what long-term he has to care about. is that, in fact, the leverage that secretary of state clinton has with morsi in saying to him

you have got to lean on hamas to stop this and somehow we will navigate through this in the coming months but it seems to me that morsi has made himself a central figure in this process. >> well, sure. i suppose the difficulty for president morsi is hamas is the key actor in this equation but obviously there are other groups resident in gaza that perhaps even hamas does not completely control. so when you get to that aspect of assurances, prime minister netanyahu wants a period of calm before he signs a truce. obviously gave that point -- it is very challenging. eliot, the other aspect as your opening clip of hillary clinton underlined is the third element of this is bringing president -- the palestinian authority out of the shadows. he's been invisible during this conflict. and he stands to be potentially the greatest loser in this political dynamic that we see

inherent in this conflict. >> eliot: you're making such a critical point that i think has been lost in the general public because abbas has been invisible, nobody has thought about the impact of his stature and the stature of the palestinian authority and really they are the party that israel would prefer to negotiate with. and yet hamas, because of the violence has elevated itself and made itself the primary voice visually at least for palestinians and abbas as you say, is lurking in the shadows. how does he become and israel would -- i would think would want this. can israel turn abbas once again into the legitimate negotiator for the palestinian people? >> if i have a criticism of israel over the past four years it has not done enough to strengthen abbas politically and make him the key figure and enable him to negotiate these difficult issues that remain outstanding. so coming out of this, as we've seen, there's a short-term requirement, get to a cease-fire. there is a mid-term requirement how do you prevent this from

happening again. then the long-term requirement of figuring out how to get this back to an actual substantive and sustained negotiation something that the obama administration tried mightily in 2010 and failed then. >> eliot: i think you're exactly right. the secret story line may be this is a proxy battle between hamas and abbas over who leads the palestinian movement. it is not easy to see who's doing what to whom. p.j. crowley professor at george washington university. former secretary for president obama. for more on israel's options let's go to former u.s. ambassador to morocco marc ginsberg. thank you for joining us. >> pleasure to be with you eliot. >> eliot: not a happy moment in the middle east. you have been a critic of u.s. policies thinking we've been too passive. is what we're seeing now an outgrowth of our being passive

for too long a time and feuding forces explode in a moment when we don't want this to happen? >> the usual metaphor in the middle east if you don't stay on the bicycle and keep pedaling you fall off that's precisely what the problem has been with the active americans consistent and strategic diplomacy to try to break this logjam that exists that is in effect and powered hamas to take what essentially is now the primary role as p.j. crowley said away from the more secular palestinian authority which is high tailing it to the united nations to circumvent israel and not negotiate directly in order to get its own victory at the united nations at the expense of israel. >> eliot: let's play this out. didn't we have the leverage with abbas and the palestinian authority to force them to go back to the table or frankly to get prime minister netanyahu to go back to the table with abbas to move that process forward

which would have cut hamas out of the equation perhaps eliminating this current explosion of violence. >> eliot i have no illusions that under the circumstances that have existed and never never have any american diplomat or any american administration been able to force their will on the parties where the parties themselves are not prepared to negotiate in good faith to settle the final status issues that need to be settled. and so we've seen this ever since the obama administration came in and focused its attention on settlement construction in the west bank. it strategically lost the capacity to influence events because it lost the support of the palestinian authority for failing to deliver on settlement -- freeze on settlements and the israeli government basically had what essentially was a meltdown in its relationship with the obama administration. >> eliot: you're right. this is where we lost control. how do you critique the role of

prime minister morsi who is now rhetorically being supportive of hamas but seems to have begun the diplomatic process convening the conversations in cairo that have gotten us closer to a cease-fire and everybody seems to believe will get over the line in the next 24 to 48 hours. is he playing one public diplomacy role for his base but saying secretary clinton i desperately need your financial support. i'm maintaining the treaty with israel. help me navigate through the diplomatic nightmare. >> if only mr. morsi was sophisticated as we hope you from your comments make him out to be. let's remember here, eliot. he's the accidental candidate that became president who essentially is taking orders from the guardian council of the muslim brotherhood which is far more, far more anti-israel far more emphatic in its attitude toward supporting hamas. so it's very hard to say how this all plays out.

let's not impute too much so sophistication to a man who is engaged in what essentially is a delicate balancing act between his bosses in the muslim brotherhood leadership on the one hand and on the on the other hand the necessity of not alienating the multilateral donors who are -- who have to provide the funding that will give the muslim brotherhood for all intents and purposes, the capacity to deliver on the economic challenges that it faces domestically. all of the brouhaha aside, the fact of the matter is that i suspect that hamas decided to try to force mr. morsi and the egyptian government to essentially come to its rescue as a way of empowering it more over the israelis and will side more with hamas than with the palestinian authority. >> eliot: there is an irony in that there has not been tremendous military costs to the state of israel. there have been lives lost but numerically, many more

palestinian lives lost. the iron dome protective shield that has been erected at least if we're to believe the current reports have been 90% effective. the israeli population is attributing mythical powers to it. israel is not feeling great physical pain. pain, yes but not as ein our month mouse as the palestinians and yet they're winning the public relations war in much of the world. how does israel push back on the more public diplomacy side. >> i think they've done all they can. i can't possibly give them anymore credit for what they've done because the circumstances are hard as it is. they're destined to always lose the propaganda war when al jazeera and other arab televisions and reporters from around the world show the humanitarian victims the civilian victims that hamas served up by firing these missiles and then expecting and almost desiring this very type of retaliation that provides this type of optics that puts

israel in such a disadvantage. >> eliot: very perverse way hamas wants the victims because it makes the argument it wants to be made gee aren't we victims when they're not. syria which you have been writing about with increasing accuracy, saying we must do something. have we forgotten about syria as the battle between israel and hamas has grown? >> you hit the nail on the head, eliot. in the final analysis, that's exactly what iran wants. iran hopes to benefit from this crisis and that's exactly what it wants. attention taken off of syria. and having the arab world come to the rescue of its proxy puppet hamas. >> eliot: ambassador marc ginsburg, thanks for coming on the show, sharing your insights even if it is a mess. >> sure. >> eliot: the election means a new day and a new deal on the fiscal cliff. robert reich joins us coming up ahead.

the first 1,000 days of human life can cause irreparable harm to our brains and our bodies. that's why "current" has partnered with "1,000 days" to help spread the word & combat a problem that ultimately effects all of us. to see how you can help go to current dot com. brought to you by the all new dodge dart. dodge - new rules.

>> eliot: how does hp make a mistake this big and i mean big! our number of the day $8.8 billion! that's how much hp says it overpaid for british software company. last year, hp bought autonomy for $11.1 billion. today hp announced that oops,oomi is -- autonomy is worth a fraction of that. autonomy misrepresented its finances. but if hp got hoodwinked, how? how could they miss something

they claim is that big. autonomy was audited by deloitte and it was audited by kpmg, two of the big four accounting firms. they didn't notice anything? really? this sale involved a list of banks and law firms on both sides of the deal that are supposed to be in the best in the business including goldman sachs, citigroup and barclays. plus it is not as if there were no warning signs before the acquisition. oracle had considered buying autonomy for $6 billion and decided that even that was overpriced. whether autonomy did anything wrong will take time to decide but hp's mistake is simply incomprehensible. this is like buying a rolls-royce and then driving it around for a year before you figure out it is a yugo. mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.

>> eliot: welcome back. i'm joined by professor reich of u.c. berkeley, former labor secretary under president clinton and author of "beyond outrage." we're going to talk fiscal cliff in a minute. before we get there this hp thing has me going nuts! it is wall street at its worst. they paid $11 billion then realized it is only worth a bit over $2 billion. you have every major law firm, accounting firm, investment bank involved. are they that blind and dumb still? can you make sense out of this? >> eliot not only can i not make sense of it but one thing does stand out. you've got goldman sachs you've got citigroup kpmg, deloitte, every major law firm, what are they getting paid for? and they're not getting paid a small amount of money. they're getting paid a large amount of money to check out this autonomy. this particular company that is supposed to be -- it is the second largest software firm in

europe. the largest software firm in britain. if there is fraud here, if there is some major accounting error why in the world did these firms that are supposed to be doing due diligence on behalf of hp, not find it. and if they didn't find it, what are they getting paid so much money for? i don't get it. i don't understand the culture of wall street. i think a lot of these things are simply badges of good housekeeping that people and companies pay a lot of money for but that actually have no significance at all. >> eliot: professor, you're exactly right. i was at the firms. i've done these deals. these pieces of paper the due diligence documents that are generated are worthless. they're a sham. they are a fraud. these big accounting firms and law firms are given huge paychecks to bless deals that are usually not worth doing but they make money on the fees and the underlying merits of the deal. are never seriously critiqued. the accounting itself is a sham. this is as bad as it gets. it should be an embarrassment

for every firm that came close to this and it makes you wonder if nothing was learned through the series of crises we've lived through. fiscal cliff. professor, seems to me there's been a sea change. we're discussing how much we should raise in revenue rather than shouldn't revenue be raised. isn't this a good indicator of politics working for this nation? >> we're moving in the right direction because the democrats are holding most of the trump cards. if nothing is done, remember we go back to the clinton tax rates of the 1990s which were not all that bad. in fact, the economy did quite well under those tax rates. if nothing is done, basically the republicans lose. and if the republicans try to make a case that they are not going to vote for an extension of middle class tax cuts unless the rich also get a tax cut that, puts the republicans in the position of showing america that they are going to hold the middle class hostage and they

are shields for the very rich. that kind of a demonstration is not going to be good for the g.o.p. so the democrats are holding a lot of the cards. the question is will the democrats actually hold firm. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right. this will be an easy test of will. should be an easy test of will for the president. as you have pointed out january 1 is the witching hour. the republicans lose more because their negotiating position is significantly weaker. one of the things that -- the aspects of this conversation, the people don't understand, you can't fault them. the whole notion of what marginal tax rates mean. i think people think my goodness rate are going up to 39.6%. they think that will be a really huge hit but if somebody is earning $250,000 and their rate goes from 35% and goes to 40% if it were to increase 5% and that 5% would apply only, am i right to the difference between $250,000 and $500,000. >> that's right. we're talking -- that's the meaning of the word marginal.

we're talking about only the dollars in excess of some threshold. in the case of what we're talking about with regard to the fiscal cliff, it is in excess of $250,000. somebody earning $251,000 would see the rates go up only on $1,000. that's important for people to understand. this is -- we're not talking about a huge increase in taxes on somebody earning $300,000. no, we're talking about a big tax increase on people earning $850,000 or maybe a million dollars. those are the ones that will take the big hit. >> eliot: that's right. there has not been adequate -- i'm not faulting anybody but not adequate education about what this actually would do because the republicans have played effectively the notion that that person whom you just alluded to earning $251,000 would be facing this monumental tax increase and it simply isn't the case. i think understanding the sort of emotional response to this is explained partly because people don't get this notion of marginal rates.

>> the republicans have been -- they've been very good at and they've been practicing this for 50 years. scaring the public about taxes. making the case that taxes are always bad. but the fact of the matter is and everybody knows it. we have a big budget deficit out there. somebody has got to pay more taxes and some spending has got to be cut. if it's not the wealthy paying more taxes and these are wealthy, remember, who in living memory have never taken home a larger share of total income and wealth in living memory, have never paid an effective tax rate that's as on their breath and income, these are the wealthy who are putting over something on everybody else. if they don't pay more, everybody else has to pay more. >> eliot: somebody's gotta pay it. i think the affirmative shift here is that the deal that the president offered last summer that was rejected by speaker boehner had a ratio of 10-1 cuts to revenue. the republicans said no way. we're not doing that.

now we're essentially talking about something that's 2-1 and the republicans are acknowledging the revenue has to be raised. that's a sea change. >> that's progress. progress comes directly out of something called an election. >> eliot: that's right. those are good things, we think. >> undoubtedly good things. the election, the sharpest difference in the election between romney and obama was over this precise issue. should taxes be raised on the wealthy? and the public said yes. >> eliot: in fact the president said that at his press conference. this is what the public thought it was voting on. this is what the public sent me back to do. therefore, there is if not a mandate across a range of other issues, on this. very quickly the issue of whether or not you limit deductions versus increasing the marginal rates is. it mathematically and realistically possible to get the revenue we need by limiting the deductions that are possible to limit? >> as a practical matter, it's not. don't just take my word for it. the independent tax policy center, other independent groups, the congressional policy

group, the congressional budget office, everybody looking at this says just by limiting deductions for the wealthy you can't get anywhere near the $1.6 trillion that the president justifiably says does need to be raised in additional revenues. if you made the tax on capital gains equal to the tax on ordinary income, maybe that preference would get you closer but nobody is talking about doing that unfortunately. >> eliot: i've written about that. it would be the best thing economically and also in terms of equity and distribution. >> we did it in 1986. i think we could do it again. we could do something to get rid of this tax industry. they make their money by trying to make ordinary income look like capital gains. >> eliot: of course, the west abuse there is the so-called carried interest which is not a capital gain but it is treated as such by hedge fund managers. >> we saw that in the election campaign. >> eliot: we did. author of "beyond outrage,"

robert reich, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks, eliot. >> eliot: a clown fights with a cop. no, it didn't happen on capitol hill.

uh, i'm in a timeout because apparently riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... ♪ [ male announcer ] e-trade.

investing unleashed. where you don't back down from a challenge. this is the age of knowing how to make things happen. so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra.

talk to your doctor. >> eliot: coming up, will the president finally get serious about climate change. congressman raul grijalva joins me next. romney's final flip-flop. o'reilly and stuart spar again. it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder. ♪ >> if barack obama opens up and gives $5 million within one hour to my satisfaction, many americans, inner city children in chicago will be given to their president. >> if it is the type of

eyewitness video bound to be a web sensation. a local man dressed as a clown getting into a brawl with a milwaukee police officer. >> that's a clown question. >> it was funny to witness. probably not so fun for the clown. but as a spectator, it was pretty entertaining. >> traditional america as we knew it is gone. ward june, wally and the beav out of here. >> pretty much. >> traditional america realized even their witch wives couldn't save them from being replaced. bill o'reilly, what are you talking about? >> here's what i'm talking about mr. obtuse. if you and your 17 writers would look at the exit polling you'll see that a coalition of voters put the president back into the oval office. that coalition was non-traditional. >> america's demographics have always been changing! and the old establishment always giving way to -- and presenting a new establishment.

mr. o'reilly and mr. goldberg. >> apparently mitt and ann romney went to see "twilight" at the movie theatre on saturday night. >> you like vampires? >>i don't like vampires. i don't know any. >> eliot: poor mitt. guy loses and now he's the butt of all humor. president promised to do something about climate change. he didn't promise what or when. congressman raul grijalva joins me next. and through the woods. and a little bit of skidding on the ice and taking out grandma's garage door. so while you're celebrating, allstate will be standing by. trouble never takes a holiday. neither should your insurance. that's allstate's stand. are you in good hands? ♪ ♪

>> eliot: the only knew president obama from what you heard in the election, you might think he was an an echo extremist. that he had killed the entire keystone pipeline project. coal production is the same as ten years ago. domestic oil drilling is as high as it's been since the late '90s. keystone pipeline has been

carrying oil for the last two years. now that election rhetoric has died down, what choices will obama actually make about energy and climate change? he admits we have a problem. that, as they say it is the first step. is there a second step in his news conference last week, the president held back on specific solutions mentioning only an education process and "a national conversation." what is the president willing to risk to address global warming and what can he do without congress's help? let's bring in congressman raul grijalva a member of the subcommittee on water and power. congressman, welcome and happy thanksgiving to you. >> happy thanksgiving to you. thank you. >> always a pleasure to have you. where will we go on climate change. we all understood perhaps in the first term, the president was overrun with economic issues and healthcare. climate change is one where many people are saying mr. president it is time to stand up and lead. do you think he will do so? >> yes.

i think we allowed it to be framed whether it was the carbon tax discussion, whether it was anything dealing with the public land. allowed it to be framed that this is hurting the economy. well, it's not. it is an economic issue. but dealing with the question of climate change which i think is the most bipartisan and the biggest elephant in the political room for this generation and future generations, i think it is a great legacy issue. and i think it needs to be confronted. and alternative energy, renewables, all of those a part of the package but as a political issue climate change can't be ignored. and the president -- i think president obama has an opportunity here to begin -- not only a discussion but begin some administrative action, independent of congress to begin to deal with climate change as the issue for the future as

opposed to ignoring it and pretending it's not there. >> eliot: you and i both know the political process deals with things that are in a state of extreme. it deals with the emergency. the ex-again is i of the moment. the problem with climate change is that it is slowly catching up to us. it may be too late to deal with it. the cost we would have to bear are significant. you and i want to do something immediate right now. unfortunately storms like hurricane sandy drive home the impact of climate change. has the president begun the process of explaining to the public why we need to act now and then giving us the range of options that are available to us? >> i think the opportunity is in front of him. he has got a pulpit. no one else has. he is the president. he can raise the issue of climate change to a level where demands a public discussion. he can raise the issue to a level where it becomes a political issue in this country.

and that, you know, the next -- in two years is another election. it would be wonderful to have environment, climate change and being one of the issues that all candidates have to deal with. at this point, it is an ignored issue. when you ignore an issue sandy happens, huge amount of heat in the southwest that's never happened before is going to occur in this summer and those are consequences of not dealing with the issue. i think it is fundamentally at a human level, at a species. >> eliot:, a profound issue that we have to come up to grips with. >> eliot: i said when i was governor, delay is the enemy of progress especially with an issue like this where the accretion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is camping up to us. the issue is what are the solutions. there are many republicans both in the elected office and conservative economists who have said it is good economics. it puts the costs and burdens of

creating pollution on those who are generating it and it pushes us economically to choose options that do not create that sort of carbon gas that is dangerous to us. do you think there is beginning to be momentum for carbon tax in congress? >> i think there is. it is a disincentive. it tells people you use this process. you use this finite resource which is fossil fuels that is contributing 97% of scientists, 98% say it is a direct contribution to climate change. it is not a fantasy. it is fact. it is science. and it is a disincentive to promote alternatives, renewables better use. i think it is the way to go. i think it has some legs now. i don't see it happening immediately but at least if we can get the conversation started as the president said and him --

from his pulpit, direct that conversation and confront this issue, i think most americans the majority of americans are going to understand the dire consequences of ignoring an issue that is going to cost us economically and in terms of the cost of quality of life, tremendously down the future. >> eliot: there is an odd parallel here with the healthcare situation individual mandate which is a lightning rod for so much opposition, mitt romney idea, newt gingrich idea, heritage foundation idea, the carbon tax has been supported by some of the very conservative economists who surrounded mitt romney because it is as you just said, it is simple, old-fashioned, conservative economics and if the president explained it that way and educated the public about that, i think it could begin to change public opinion about how you could do it in a way that would get kind of naturally in the -- gnarly in the the details.

i want to switch gears a little bit. the issue of fracking and now we're seeing the water the huge volumes of water used in the fracking process to force and break the shale then releases the gas. that water is going reused. is this a step forward? how do you understand this whole debate about fracking? >> what i hope happens in this next four years is the administration allows e.p.a. to do its job. to allow it to look at the issue of fracking. the consequences. you know, talk about mining. talk about anything else. it was always an unintended consequence. when pollution happened and when we heard the economy -- we hurt the economy or lives of people. fracking has consequences. whether it is aquifer consequences environmental consequences property right consequences. i think it needs a much more thorough independent oversight.

you know. states want it because it creates revenue. but there is a consequence at the end of it and i -- i really believe that if we let the e.p.a. do its job let them present the information, that would be best for the american people. >> eliot: one of the things about fracking is that the consequences do not respect or own or know what state lines are. if they're seismic as you pointed out. should be a federal set of rules that would be done properly then we would see where it takes us. congressman raul grijalva, thank you for your time and have a great thanksgiving. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: bad news for news corp. robbery charges last land dangerously close to rupert murdoch. that's ahead on "viewpoint." enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders

have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

>> eliot: despite all the nonsense, the election was good for us. not just because our side won. that's ahead on my view. later tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern, join jennifer granholm in "the war room" for more on the critical situation in the middle east with her guests juan cole. that's later on tonight. for now more "viewpoint" coming

right up. forty times on the tonight show, i think he owes me a few visits. >> eliot: maybe it's the proximity of thanksgiving that has gotten to me but here's a really positive take on the year in politics. the good guys won. i don't just mean the president got re-elected. there was more to it. so let's take a closer look at two specific aspects of the political landscape. first, democracy was elevated. yes, that may sound crazy after all of the vile and nasty tv ads that buffeted us this year. the ugliness was there as it will always be. at its core was a healthy and sophisticated debate about the vision and role of government. president obama and governor romney brought very divergent views about the role of government to the table and the

public got that. even though governor romney tried very hard to slide to the middle in the first debate, the specific programmatic positions he had taken over the course of the campaign couldn't be ignored and that created a true choice. the question, who built that? captured the debate at one level. and the public said loud and clear we all did. not just any one person, not just any one company. we all contributed to the fabric of the nation. the debate was healthy and the outcome was right. second a more theoretical level, think of this tension as keynes versus hayek and rawls versus nozick. obama support for government stimulus and expenditures to invest are traditional keynesian. shrink government at all costs was akin to the hands off approach of hayek and the

chicago school. rawls view of a government that is concerned about the well-being of the least well-off member of society is akin to obama's interest in a progressive income tax where the wealthier pay more and where ensuring access to healthcare and food stamps for those who are needy is important. romney's statement about the 47%, even if one credits that he is more compassionate than those words might suggest are more akin to the libertarian world of nozick where one eats what one -- and if there are shortfalls, private charity not government should fill the void. when the choice was made, rawls won overs nozick as well he should have. why do i feel so good about the year? there was a discernible clear choice presented to the public. the choice could be seen and understood at many different levels of abstraction from who built that a philosophical debate. the process of choosing and the process of debating the issues pulled in the attention of the

public and we participated and that is what democracy is all about. that's my view. zisko el granada is a special place to learn because we have a dedicated community and a dedicated staff. and when kids come on campus everyday, they're enthusiasm for learning shines. we receive federal funding because a majority of our students are socially disadvantaged. making sure our students receive healthy nutritious lunches and breakfasts is critical to their learning. i would like to see students take more ownership of what they eat everyday and learn about their bodies and how their food nourishes them. sandra jonaidi i hope that we get them early enough that they've learn some good eating habits and they go forward and become very productive humans and grow up to make us all proud of them. narrator>> for more info, go to current dot com. brought to you by basf - the chemical company.

>> eliot: rupert murdoch's right and left hands just got caught in the bribery cookie jar. his two closest nonfamily member aides were indicted today on bribery charges raising the inevitable question how could rupert murdoch not have known. prosecutors in britain today announced their plans to charge rebecca brooks and andy colson with conspiring to bribe public officials for information. brooks who had been chief executive of murdoch's news international was an extraordinarily close friend of prime minister david cameron. she's charged along with another journalist with paying $160,000 over seven years to a defense ministry official for information while colson who most recently served as cameron's director of communications after stepping down as editor of the now defunct news of the world tabloid conspired to pay

officials for access to a royal phone directory known as the green book. this new round of charges for the two are in addition to charges they already face associated with hacking voice mails. here with me to discuss the latest development in the on-going murdoch media scandal ed pilkington. thank you for your time tonight. >> good to be here. >> is rupert murdoch finally feeling some real heat? these two are as close as you can get to him. >> yes. they've been charged before but this specific charge, the bribery charge brings the problem of phone hacking right to the front door of rupert murdoch here on 6th avenue in new york. previous charges have involved phone hacking they've involved perjury and trying to destroy evidence. but this one bribery bribing officials, one military official that brings rupert murdoch's empire, news corporation right into the legal

arena which is a very serious -- as you know, very serious legal challenge. >> eliot: the u.s. foreign practice, they'll be in the vortex of u.s. inquiries. i happen to know from several sources they already are. whether they will proceed at a pace who knows. but the other thing that is interesting about this, not only the nature of the crime. bribing a defense department official has a different feel than hacking in the voice mail of a celebrity movie star to get some cheap gossip. this goes directly to the heart of what needs to be protected if you're -- and also the timeframe is different. this is a more recent set of events. >> yes that's also relevant for the murdoch family because the allegation that bribery occurred, they've given a timeframe to it. 2004 right up until 2011. very recently. now why is that important? james murdoch the heir apparent until this whole burning inferno went up in flames, he took over chairmanship of up are urt

merdock's british -- rupert murdoch's british holdings. we have a four-year period when james was in charge of the whole caboodle in britain and bribery was, according to the police, according to the charges still going on during that period. >> eliot: the other thing that we cannot emphasize is that rebecca brooks was incredibly close to rupert. after this had begun to break he was asked what his primary mission was. he said to protect rebecca brooks. >> yes. she's obviously a fascinating person. not only was she incredibly close to rupert murdoch incredibly close to the british prime minister david cameron. so with her her legal -- falling around her, she's dragging seemingly other people with her. >> eliot: the penalties for bribery under the british law are very significant. >> yeah. the range -- we're not quite sure what they're going to go for, the prosecution. if you look at past

prosecutions, people have gone to jail for months, even years. >> eliot: the discretion that is afforded the judge is significant. in negotiating with her it is now time for you to begin to talk honestly about who knew what when. >> we don't quite have the american system in britain where plea deals happen as a matter of course but of course, you know, the police like to apply pressure to see if they can get information about those higher up. another important thing is when trials happen as they now are going to happen, we will start to see the results of millions -- hundreds of millions of e-mails which police obtain from news corporation for their research. we're going to start seeing what this information is actually based upon. >> eliot: you have david cameron who had brought in andy colson as his communications director. at a minimum making a bad judgment to rely upon colson what seem to be lies to him about colson having no culpability. is cameron shaky because of

this? >> in two weeks' time, we're going to hear the results of lord leverson's inchoirry into the media in britain which is this massive public official inquiry into how the media handles its affairs. when david cameron, prime minister gets that report, he will have to decide what to do about the press in britain and he himself is implicated. he's a good friend of rebecca brooks. he employed months after he stood down balls of the phone hacking scandal and -- he's right in the center of it. he will be in charge of cleaning up a scandal of which he is at the center of. >> eliot: it makes you think the wild, crazy conspiracy theories you see in bad novels are true. there over the atlantic in london where you have rebecca brooks the vortex. whogd who could have thought this up. reminiscent of the famous line from the godfather the moment i think i'm getting out they drag me back out. the heat